Peter wrote:
Interesting times;
The y2k bug demonstrated the corruption of engineering.

Incorrect.

The Y2K bug demonstrated that in many cases companies wouldn't listen to
engineers, or more correctly, programmers. Some did, most didn't until
very late. I was working on Y2K upgrades in 1991 at utility companies.
Many other, less critical types waited until much later.

Most programs that really counted, like utility companies billing and
control programs, were written in the 1960s and no one ever expected
them to be used for even 10 years without replacement, let alone 30+.
To blame engineers is foolish, since they had little to do with the
programs in the first place, or the programmers, who could not foresee
the future.

And some languages turned out not to have a Y2K "bug" even if you didn't
handle the years correctly. Like Perl. In most cases the worst thing
that happened was that it gave a 3 digit year where you expected 2. So
year 2000 showed as 100. Wasn't a problem in calculations involving
time spans.

And what little real bits of the Y2K bug that existed was SQUASHED
before it ever got a chance to happen. By the next and a half
generation of engineers and programmers. And management that finally
understood how much they had to lose. At a tremendous cost, 95% of
which was wasted because management was soooo worried.

tom
K0TAR